Smt. Dasari Govardhanamma, vs Smt. Patnam Ramulamma,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1578 Tel

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                 C.R.P.NO.970 OF 2023


Between:
Dasari Govardhanamma and others
                                                 ... Petitioners
                           And

Smt Patnam Ramulamma and others
                                                ... Respondents

       JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 11.04.2023


THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA



1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers    :     yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?        :     yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?       :     yes



                                        _________________
                                    SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                                                                 SN,J
                                2




      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                    C.R.P.NO.970 OF 2023
% 11.04.2023

Between:

# Dasari Govardhanamma and others
                                                 ..... Petitioners
And


$ Smt Patnam Ramulamma and others
                                                .....Respondents


< Gist:
> Head Note:



! Counsel for the Petitioners   : Mrs Srilekha Pujari
^ Counsel for the Respondents:




? Cases Referred:
                                                               SN,J
                               3




     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                   C.R.P.NO.970 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the

propriety and legality of the order dated 20.01.2022 in

I.A.No.112 of 2021 in O.S.No.32 of 2021 on the file of

the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Gadwal.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are

referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the

Lower Court.

3. The defendants filed I.A.No.112 of 2021, under Order

26 Rule 1 and 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking

appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for demarcating

boundaries and noting the physical features of the plaint

schedule property with the help of Revenue Inspector of

Gadwal (Rural) and Deputy Inspector of Survey (Jogulamba)

Gadwal District. The plea taken in that petition is that the

extent of plaint schedule land as per the pattedar passbooks

of the plaintiffs varies with the extent shown in the plaint

schedule and as such the identity of the suit land is in dispute SN,J

and the plaintiff wrongly showed boundaries in the plaint

schedule and so it is necessary to appoint an Advocate

Commissioner for demarcation of the boundaries of the plaint

schedule land and to note down the physical features of the

lands.

4. The plaintiffs in their counter vehemently opposed the

plea for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner. They

contended that the suit is filed for bare injunction and the

issue in the suit would be whether as on the date of filing of

the suit they were in possession of the suit land or not and

that the boundaries as shown in the plaint schedule are the

boundaries that were in existence as on the date of filing of

the suit and so the question of demarcation of boundaries by

surveyor does not arise. They also contend that the plaint

schedule land was already surveyed and demarcated in the

presence of both the parties and that undisputedly the suit

land is agricultural land and so there is no need for noting

down the physical features of the land.

5. The lower Court after considering the material on record

came to the conclusion, that there is no variation in the

extent of land between the pattedar passbooks and the plaint SN,J

schedule and survey of the subject land having already been

conducted by Mandal Surveyor and having regard to the

scope of the suit, the question whether the plaintiffs were in

possession of the land as on the date of suit can be decided

by considering the oral and documentary evidence to be

adduced by both the parties and that therefore, there is no

need for appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the respondents.

PERUSED THE RECORD

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

7. The plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction simplicitor

claiming that they were in possession and enjoyment of

Ac.02.39 gts in Survey Nos.98/1/1, 98/3/1, 98/1/2, 98/1/3,

98/33, 98/1/4, and 98/34 situated in Yenkampeta Village,

Gadwal Mandal of Jogulamba Gadwal District within the

boundaries as shown in the plaint schedule in the suit. It is

settled position of law that in a suit for bare injunction, the

issue that would arise mainly for consideration is whether as

on the date of the suit the plaintiffs were in possession of the SN,J

suit land, but the question of title of the plaintiffs can be gone

into incidentally. An advocate Commissioner can be

appointed if there is dispute as to the identity of the suit land

and in the present case the only contention of the defendants

is that there is variation between the passbooks and the plaint

schedule in respect of the extent of suit land. For the purpose

of knowing the identity of the land, it is only the description of

the land as given in the plaint schedule that has to be looked

into, but not the pattadar passbooks which are only evidential

documents, however, the lower Curt in its order clearly

observed that there is no variation in the extent of land

between the pattadar passbooks and the plaint schedule.

8. Importantly, prior to the filing of the suit, survey

was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor vide Ex.R.1 -

panchanama dated 29.12.2020 and the defendants 2

and 5 signed the panchanama as mediators. The lower

Court rightly observed that when there is already

survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor, Gadwal and

boundaries were fixed on the basis of Tippon in the

presence of defendants 2 and 5, there is no necessity

for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for SN,J

demarcating the boundaries and noting the physical

features of the suit land.

9. In view of the above, this Court is of the

considered opinion that there is no impropriety,

illegality or irregularity committed by the lower Court

in passing the impugned order dated 20.01.2022 in

I.A.No.112 of 2021 in O.S.No.32 of 2021 on the file of

the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Gadwal and so

this Court does not find any merit in the civil revision

petition and accordingly, the civil revision petition is

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 11.04.2023 Note: L.R. copy to be marked b/o Kvrm